Canada's defence procurement strategy is very complicated and problematic.
Case in point are our CH-124 Sea King helicopters, which have been on
active duty since the 1960’s and are now at a point where the whole
fleet needs to be decommissioned. The most recent crash at CFB
Shearwater in 2014 grounded our entire naval helicopter capability until
repairs and a full operational evaluation were made.
But where it really hurts the most is in the human costs. In 2004,
Canada bought four Victoria-class diesel-powered submarines from the
British Navy, and one, the HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire during the
cross-Atlantic trip from England. One navy officer died and eight others
were injured. The experience also traumatized several members. When I
was still working at CFB Stadacona, a friend of mine, one of the
non-commissioned officers who crewed the submarine, was deeply affected
by the incident that it kept him from sailing for a few years. These are
brave men and women, Canada's finest, and for them to experience these
at a time of peace is completely unacceptable.
In a recent visit to Berlin, Trudeau made it clear that financial considerations aren’t everything when it comes to Canada's NATO commitment.
But the problem cannot be fixed by simply finding replacements. The
central consideration here is how to efficiently use the available
monetary resources to maximize spending and capability, and reduce
collateral damage on human lives to ensure that Canada's military
capability is always at optimal readiness.
Based on an article from natoassociation.ca, which was published in
2015, Canada’s “Full Range of Threats” procurement strategy is
emblematic of the current state of our military capabilities. While this
strategy sounds good in theory, this has the potential to lead to poor
prioritization and competition between the different uniforms in
acquiring much needed hardware.
Another issue we are facing is the differing opinions on military
spending between the Treasury Board and the Canadian Forces.
Former-Commander Ken Hansen, who once co-chaired the Maritime Studies
Programme at the RMC, was interviewed by CBC in 2015 and he expressed
his concerns over the colliding viewpoints. The board, he says, is
mandated to spend money effectively to ensure Canadians are getting the
best value. This means that the Board prefers to buy in bulk, whereas
the Department of National Defence believes that getting the best
equipment, no matter how few that may be, is the right path. This is a
serious question of quantity and quality, and which one should take
precedence when it comes to our military spending strategy.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is a disconnect about
the future of our Canadian Forces. While our military continues to play
an essential role in defending the interest of all Canadians, the top
branches of our government and the military will need to sit down and
re-evaluate future expectations. When we bought our aging fleet of
military hardware, it was at a time when we learned from the lessons of
World War II and we are preparing for the possible escalation of the
Cold War. Now, our military has progressed mostly to missions that are
more in line with humanitarian and relief efforts such as stopping human
trafficking, aiding during natural disasters, and fighting off the
spread of drugs and weapons. However, the threat of terrorism is growing
stronger each day and we should be prepared to protect and help.
Canada's defence spending fell to 0.98 per cent of its gross domestic
product in 2015. NATO reported in 2016 that spending that year hit
record lows despite Canada agreeing in 2014, along with other member
countries, to stop cutting military budgets and allocate two per cent of
its GDP on defence spending. Sadly, there seems to be no end to the
problem in the foreseeable future. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's new
Liberal government have yet to commit to the promise. In a recent visit
to Berlin, Trudeau made it clear that financial considerations aren’t
everything when it comes to Canada's NATO commitment.
This will have a long-term effect to our defensive capabilities and
military top brasses are bracing for the worse. How long can Canada hold
out before inflation kicks in?
To become more effective in our procurement strategy, we need to
re-evaluate the direction of our military and adapt our strategies based
on present circumstances, without forgetting the real reason our
military exists in the first place.
